<p>1st – Omega Cape Town</p><p>2nd – Omega San Francisco </p><p>3rd – Omega Toronto</p><p>4th – Omega Boston</p><p>5th – Omega Dallas </p><p>Rational for Ranking teams in this order</p><p>#1 – Omega Cape Town - The Omega Cape Town presentation was excellent. The team presented a quick summary and intended audience, then proceeded directly into agreements, disagreements, and thoughts/conclusion. I agree with the key points they brought up with the Wheatley article. The presentation was very organized and professional. I do not have suggestions for improvement this week.</p><p>#2 – Omega San Francisco - The Omega San Francisco Critique was a little heavy on the summary section (approximately 60%), however the content given was critical to understanding the intent of the article and should not be shortened. The critique was present, but a little short on time. Suggestion going forward would be an expansion on the critique section. The presentation was clean and neat. I thought the "first thoughts" section was a nice addition.</p><p>#3 – Omega Toronto - The Omega Toronto presentation this week was a little heavy on the summary section (approximately 60%). The thoughts / critique section made up the remaining 40% and was very weak. The only real critique point given was by Charlie where it was mentioned the author should have included more examples. The group could not ascertain the intended audience, which upon a quick read of the work is clear.</p><p>#4 –Omega Boston - The presentation by Omega Boston was significantly lacking in critique. 3:55 of the 5:13 (approx. 75%) was a review of the article instead of critique. The summary conclusion only listed four rudimentary points without deep analysis. There was no information on what business leaders should take away from the article.</p><p>#5 – Omega Dallas - The presentation by Omega Dallas was different from the typical presentation. At the start of the presentation the main audience and purpose were given. After the beginning, the rest of the presentation was difficult to follow. The remainder of the presentation was a series of scrolls showing the content of the book. Feedback from each team member was given, but the presentation format made it appear very unprofessional, hence the low ranking.</p>